> breaking my arm is "more good", in that it is preferable Neither are preferable over "don't break any of my limbs", but I understand your point. I only nitpi

> breaking my arm is "more good", in that it is preferable Neither are preferable over "don't break any of my limbs", but I understand your point. I only nitpick because "having no bad things" is not equivalent to "having good things," in my mind. This is something I dealt with on a personal level relatively recently. > Your second argument conflates legality with morality, so I don't really consider it especially valid. The constitution speaks in terms of "god-given rights" and not "laws". The founding fathers were speaking the language of moral imperatives and not of legal imperatives. This is intentional. The conflation occurs when people consider the laws themselves as opposed to their motivating intentions to be moral imperatives. But my claim is that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are (some of) the motivating moral intentions that justify the laws, thus there is no conflation in my argument. > I consider the "torturing people" part much, much worse than the "you broke the promise" part, so much so that the latter seems like a rounding error to me, to use a somewhat utilitarian phrase. Ironically, I argue a utilitarian would disagree: it is likely that a government breaking their promises is harmful and perhaps terrifying to a much larger group of individuals than those who are directly harmed via torture. I figure there's a strong utilitarian argument that (a small harm * 150 million people) > (a large harm * 200 people), but then again, this is part of the horror embodied by stories like "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". I am no utilitarian myself, but I am also no orthodox Humanist either...